As outlined in the
Evidence section, when I obtained definitive proof that Nelly Wince
had knowingly and maliciously lied in court, I submitted a complaint
to Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board Lawyer's Office of Professional Conduct. At the time I still believed the legal process
was at least at its core just. However, I soon learned the true
extent of just how corrupt the system was.
The Board did open
an investigation and at first assigned a real estate lawyer to
investigate. However, the investigator was soon swapped out for
someone who, I only learned much later, was a mediator that earned
his living through referrals from divorce lawyers. The reason the
original investigator was replaced was vague – something about lack
of time.
It seemed to me at a
minimum that Nelly Wince would be reprimanded and in all likelihood
receive a much more serious punishment. After all, I had her red
handed. The Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct are very clear
and Wince had clearly violated them. I am not sure it is even
possible to have stronger evidence that I had as it was based solely
on documents filed with the court and a court transcript.
So what happened? In
an true Orwellian manner, the investigator found Nelly Wince not
guilty without ever addressing the charges. He seemed to state that
because I had not used a lawyer in preparing the docket it question,
the one which Wince had lied in court about, that she was not guilty.
In fact, the docket was prepared correctly and even reviewed by the
the County Family Court Self-Help Service Center prior to submission. The
investigator did not question any of the facts. It was as if he was
saying that by not paying up to a lawyer I could not expect justice.
Al Capone would have loved the logic. Maybe some day I'll publish a
redacted version of the finding.
I then appealed the
ruling which was interesting as there is almost no information
available on how to do so. It tuned out an appeal consisted of
nothing more than a letter to the Office of Professional Conduct. The
appeal was likewise rejected, again with out addressing any of the
issues. Which, if nothing else, at least took aways the ability of
the office to claim that the investigator and not the office was
corrupt.
No comments:
Post a Comment